I did cut it out, but it may have still made it through. Unfortunately it will not work with Quicken spell do the changes they made to Quicken Spell specifically. It sates: You can't modify a spell in this way if you've already cast a level 1+ spell on the current turn, nor can you cast a level 1+ spell on this turn after modifying a spell in this way. I believe this language change was made specifically because of the updates to casting a spell.
Lighting arrow is now a bonus action spell, so nope, can't do that, all of rangers spells that they want an action for are either cantrips do don't allow them to make weapon attacks to take advantage of hunters mark However hunters mark also works with spell attacks, so you could cast hunters mark and scorching ray in the same turn, each ray doing 2d6 fire and 1d6 force damage, that works
Quicken spell won't work. It has it's own language that prevents you from casting a spell with a level. Basically if you use Quicken spell you revert back to the 2014 rules.
Archfey Warlock was already so awesome, and this just doubles down on it. You get a number of free Misty Steps equal to your Charisma modifier per day, and with this you can use them on the same turns as you cast another spell as an action.
Perplexing that Archfey is regularly rated somewhere around C minus on RUclips Warlock subclass tier lists. As a self-confessed power gamer, the intangible elements of Fey patrons are still a lot of fun to play with and the strength of the subclass mechanics are obvious, especially in actual gameplay at lower levels. Expanded spell list is only really lacking at level 2. Fey Presence and Misty Escape are absolute clutch subclass features that improve survivability immensely. Not sure if this is still true for tier 3 or 4 because the utility of the Warlock class caps out at level 9, so even if the campaign goes this long a multiclass dip is always better than higher Warlock levels (power gamer perspective). The true strength of the Archfey Warlock is its slightly chaotic, unpredictable playstyle, which fits thematically. As for the rest of the Warlock subclasses. Fiend? Too dumb for Evoker school. Undead? Too dumb for Necromancy school. Undying? Too dumb to realise this isn’t Undead. Great Old One? Edgelord loner. Celestial? Too foolish for the priesthood. Genie? Main character syndrome. Fathomless? Slightly more useful than playing a Commoner. Hexblade? Too cowardly to go full martial. S tier.
As they always were for wizards since the 2014 PHB. As a wizard, you could have an extensive spell book but you were always quite limited by the number of spells you could prepare. So you wouldn’t prepare spells that were situation specific unless you had good reason to believe you’d need them. In other words, the wizard’s best feature - the variety of spells you could cast - was nerfed by the paucity of spells you could prepare. Scrolls were the workaround to that limitation. They allowed you to have your little-used situational spells on scrolls and save your prepared spells for the ones you were most likely to need. Of course there’s a snag: scrolls are costly to produce. If your DM was niggardly with treasure, you were screwed. Sadly, that doesn’t seem to have changed with the 2024 revision.
@@overlordofmidgard5876 the limitations are probably going to be casting times. Arcanum spells are an action, so you would only have a bonus action to do another spell. I still don't know if that makes Arcanum spells worth it.
@@bradleyhurley6755there are warlock spells you can learn that are a bonus action to cast, including for the arcanums. So you can arcanum bonus action cast or cast with an action and then still cast a bonus action spell using a spellslot.
This is also a huge boon for the Cleric as well, whose Divine Intervention lets you cast a spell of 5th level or lower as a Magic [Action] once per Long Rest without expending a spell slot. Gonna be honest, don't know what Bonus Action spells you'd want to compliment with a 5th level Cleric spell or lower, but it's pretty neat. Also, also regarding Divine Intervention, the only other restriction to the spell you can cast with Divine Intervention is it cannot be a spell that requires a Reaction. This means you can cast spells with a longer Casting Time than an Action. A friend pointed out that you could cast Hallow, a spell that has a *_24 HOUR_* Casting Time in a single action. That's crazy fucking powerful against the creature types affected. Just a very neat thing for Clerics.
Sanctuary, shield of faith Sancutary can be combined anything concentration not affecting your enemy or to get a pot shot off then Sanctuary afterwards. Shield of faith is extra defense as you are doing non concentration spells.
Why is everyone freaking out so bad about it, most BA spells are movement or utility. Even if someone uses a Wand of Fireball to nuke a field or a Scroll of Annihilation and then misty steps 30 whole feet away...big whoop, that is still in range of most creatures one way or another.
I would have less of a problem with this if they hadn't removed paladin's ability to smite and misty step on the same turn because apparently that's too powerful but this is just fine.
Quicken spell has a separate restriction, you could use a psychic spell and then misty step, but not a psychic spell and then quickened spell Quickened spell reads you can't cast any level 1 or higher spells before or after you use it
@barcster2003 there are a bunch of loopholes in the new rules, I plan to make a fighter 1, warlock 1, valor bard 13 who upcasts armour of agathys, and then uses power word fortify, replacing the temp hp, but with new temp HP rules, it is not explicitly stated that you lose the old temp HP first, leaving you with none, and then replacing them Basically temp HP still doesn't stack but you can extend armour of agathys by replacing your temp HP pool with a large sum of temp hp, and power word fortify gives you 120 And the fighter is for heavy armour so I can use heavy armour master, as well as fighting style for protection, which is amazing, though if you want smite but not protection, you can take a 1 level paladin instead
If you provoke an Opportunity Attack on your turn, and then cast Shield as a reaction (using a spell slot), does this mean you cannot cast any more spells on that turn that require spending a spell slot?
@@DRuckle sorry. I read shield and just assumed it was another person's turn because I don't think that would be a wise move to begin with. If you really need to avoid getting hit, misty step or any spell that physically moves you is probably going to be better than shield. But yeah, you could not cast another spell with a spell slot until your turn was over.
there are new rules for counterspell now, if your spell gets countered you don't use up your spell slot anymore just your action, which would mean you could still cast it again with your reaction.
@@Morgatronbot 1: Player uses their Action to attempt to cast a spell using a spell slot 2: GM uses a Reaction to cast Counterspell. 3. Same player uses their reaction to also cast Counterspell using a spell slot. 4. Players 1st spell fails anyway because they've already used a spell slot this turn.
@@Morgatronbot yeah but if you counterspelled their counterspell, then you spent a slot ont he counterspell, but you also already spent a slot on the original spell this is giving me a headache
That's possible but I honestly believe it was intentional. You're going to be limited to a smaller selection of spells you can use, and you have to expend uses of those abilities to cast without a spell slot.
Honestly I'm actually happy with this change, it seems more interesting and varied... Though whwat I have pointed out and not heard anyone else talk about is that it wrecks counterspell chains (as usually the initial caster would counterspell the first counterspell).
I may be getting the terminology of turn and round confused and I'm not sure if either one is used interchangeably or there is a specific definition for each, but doesn't this rule kind of bring up questions of reaction spells? For example if you use fireball, can you still use shield as a reaction when it's not your turn? And am I using turn correctly in this instance and is that where I'm getting mixed up?
I was already worried about giving out items like Wands of fireball because it lets casters be powerful for much longer before they run low on resources and martials start to shine, but now if they can cast leveled spells as a bonus action and wand of fireball on the same turn, I will just about never give out such items
The one thing that actually helps the Ranger since they've given them the number of free castings of Hunter's Mark, then cast a damage spell as an action
Except as far as I can think, there isn’t really any leveled action spell that would be helpful to cast on the same turn that rangers get. Maybe it can be somewhat helpful if you have to cast something like Plant Growth on the first turn and then want to be able to use your BA on the second turn for an attack, but it opens you up to losing concentration before even getting one attack off, which doesn’t feel super great even when you didn’t spend a spell slot
*everyone freaking out about spellcasting once per turn being changed to one spellslot cast once per turn Me, who rules it that you can multicast any leveled spell once per turn: 👁️ 👄 👁️
This is one of the things I wished they would have explicitly clarified in the book. Sure, we can see that the rules allow this as written, but is that an oversight or by design?
@@michaelmuirhead910 To be honest if you are playing in my game, the encounter is going to be balanced. Two fireballs in a row may sound fun, but the encounter will already have taken that into account so you aren't actually gaining anything.
@nerdimmersion what ever happened to the necromancer you were making for the Legendary Undead book? You had said you would show it on the channel but it’s been almost a year and nothing.
When I first heard of this rule I thought of the free Hunter's Marks the rangers get at higher levels. I can't think of any good spells in the current game, but can anyone with the 2024 phb think of a good spell to cast on the same turn?
@@NerdImmersion Yeah, I just can't think of a spell I'd really want to do that on the regular. My first thought was Conjure Barrage and Hail of Thorns, but in the 2014 rules Hail of Thorns also used a bonus action, and CB is a dex save and HM only procs on weapons attacks. I was wondering if there are any new spells or changes to old ones that would make this work better.
Does warcaster still allow you to cast a spell as a reaction if something would provoke a reaction from you? Abberant mind Tiefling cast dissonant whispers with sorcery points then they move away you can cast burning hands without using a spell slot then you can still bonus action cast something else. Still a crazy combo that doesn’t even need more than one leveled spell will always be quicken spell booming blade dissonant whispers reaction booming blade because both booming blades explode immediately because the creature moves itself from the whispers.
Yes though the Reaction spell still has to be a one that ONLY targets the enemy that provoked. But Opportunity Attacks have also had a HUGE change, since they don't have to be against a "Hostile" creature, so a Cleric with War Caster could use their Reaction to cast Cure Wounds on an ally that walks past them as a Reaction
Using an action and bonus action to cast leveled spells is not that broken most of the time. I let my players do it and it's fine. If you're worried about powergamers, you can just say that you limit one leveled spell per action type per round
The Scribe Wizard our campaign will have field day, between scrolls and her spells. Can the Meta magic Adept can still be taken as a backwards capability feat ? 4th level of course
Technically yes, but they updated Metamagic Quicken to specific it can only be used to cast a spell of level 1+ once a turn, or something to that effect
Yeah, no, I hard disagree with the idea that this is an easier to understand rule, and I say that from a DM perspective. The original rule worked in the sense that once it was understood (and I mean, seriously, come on) it simply worked from any perspective, and no one had to memorize whether each individual player used their free casting of any number of their slot-free spells earlier in a session or weeks ago IRL. To that you probably say, "Well, dndbeyond can track that." Yes, as a player-facing UI, sure, it can. As a DM, you just have to trust all of your players, and even with my group that's fairly well behaved, I am not seeing it for the simple fact that people forget to mark stuff, forget to rest, etc.
now, in the DMG, charged items will be defined as having spell slots. aka, Wand of fireballs, which gives you the ability to cast fireball while attuned to it and provides 7 3rd level spell slots with witch to cast fireball, or some such nonsense to nerf this new cool thing.
I doubt it. I think they realized the old rule was just too confusing, and this one is so much simpler and cleaner. And so what if it makes certain features and items stronger? It makes class and species features even more useful, and it's not like it's broken, plenty of tables ignore that rule to start with and they're just fine. This one is less likely to be forgotten/ignored, and leaves open some really cool "aha! but that didn't use a spell slot!" situations that will be a lot of fun.
One of the worst and most unbalanced changes in the new book, even through I know why they did it. A class like the Ranger would be very nerfed if the rule is "only one leveled spell per turn". But still this is just too powerful and very unbalanced. Also using a Magic Item to cast spells uses the Use Magic Item rules and still would take an action.
This rule effectively negates half or more of the times i use reaction spells. As someone playing a defencive/utility build wizard, i hate this. Counterspell is already nerfed in the new PHB, this rule compounds that nerf and whacks silvery barbs and shield for good measure. :(
WoTc buffed magic users with this but my fuckin barbarian can't dual wield battleaxes because it's "unrealistic/unbalanced". Such peak game design truly
So they've removed wizard dueling from dnd. That's worse than lame, that will probably make high CR monsters with spellcasting and counterspell damn near impossible for a pure caster to defeat. Not being able to counterspell a counterspell used against yourself turns you into a sitting duck. I dislike this a lot.
Even worse than that tbh. It turns into my turn, you counterspell, your turn, I counterspell. Unless you're actually doing something like with the scrolls to cast 2 leveled spells, which I'm willing to wager will be extremely rare, it takes layers of complexity and decision making out of combat.
Everything has been so nerfed from 2014 lol. GWM, Sharpshooter, Keen Mind, lucky, rangers, paladins, force cage, action surge, ranged weapons in general lol, mobile, sentinel, PAM, alert, observant, counter spell, crossbow expert, ETC…ETC!!! The game is LESS diverse than it was before. It’s simplified with less choice and it’s damn sad!
While certain synergies have been removed which I find disappointing. Average DPR has increased significantly even after removing the -5/+10 component from feats. This is mostly due to weapon masteries and all general feats now being "half-feats" so you are always increasing your primary ability score and you are more likely to land attacks. Melee is now king especially dual wielding, I think the ranged nerf might have gone too far (perma prone enemies) but melee needed a boost in compensation for being at the more risk compared to ranged.
it says you can't cast a spell and bonus action, but you can cast a magic action and cantrip. why do you keep saying use bonus action with magic action, when it clearly says at the end magic action and cantrip. so no not 2 fire balls as sorcerer.
This is honestly worse than what we had though. You used to be able to cast up to 4 spells per round provided that the reaction spell trigger was later on. Now you’re going to get screwed by your reactions with this rule should you have to use them on your turn. I think we actually need to get some clarification on this as well because it seems you no longer can counterspell a counterspell. That section in the Sage Advice compendium used to be very helpful to show people that you can cast multiple spells but now it seems it’s no longer correct. So what happens now if you cast fireball, someone counters you, and you try to counter them? Does your fireball fizzle out? Are you just stopped from doing it even though technically you still haven’t successfully cast your other leveled spell?
I will say a few things. Racial abilities usually dont count as spellcasting (Atleast how I rule it) And scrolls have always just gone under the "Use object"- Action, so you could always use a scroll and then cast a spell afterwards. Which is why its so lucrative to create your own scrolls if you are a wizard or cleric. Same goes for wands. Use Object action. Now we dont know how magic items will work with the new rules, if they've changed them in any way or so.
This sounds like the sort of mistake that happens after you layoff most of your publishing & editing employees. This is really basic stuff that WotC just screwed up. This is why everyone should stop playing D&D and try out other, better written & designed games.
It probably would be better if they defined the spell groups better. Meaning that all auto spells are reaction actions, usually self active buffs, defensive types. All attack magic spells are magic attack actions. All utility spells are split between magic action and bonus action. Group utilities are magic action and self utilities are bonus action. Creator's tend to get over hype and forget to proof check things.
I dunno, I don't buy it. Seems like a language oversight that's gonna get sage advice'd. I can't imagine the important thing being spending a spell slot vs the spell being a leveled spell, that just makes absolutely no sense.
Not really. It wasn't mentioned in this video but Quicken Spell itself prevents it. You can't cast another level spell on the same turn as you use quicken spell EVEN if it doesn't consume a spell slot. Only Cantrips. Effectively using Quicken Spell reverts you back to the 2014 rules.
I think the new book is a mess, full of nonsense. I think Tales of the Valiant is a much better update to 5e, or maybe I'll try Dc20, or another system. In any case, I don't plan on buying the new players handbook
I did cut it out, but it may have still made it through. Unfortunately it will not work with Quicken spell do the changes they made to Quicken Spell specifically. It sates: You can't modify a spell in this way if you've already cast a level 1+ spell on the current turn, nor can you cast a level 1+ spell on this turn after modifying a spell in this way.
I believe this language change was made specifically because of the updates to casting a spell.
This means Hunters Mark always goes out for free and then you can follow up with Lightning Arrow or something else. This helps Rangers out.
Both spells have concentration. Unless they dropped it on lightning arrow, HM definitely still has it.
Lightning arrow no longer has concentration but its still a bonus action on a hit so it won't work on the same turn as casting HM anyway.
Lighting arrow is now a bonus action spell, so nope, can't do that, all of rangers spells that they want an action for are either cantrips do don't allow them to make weapon attacks to take advantage of hunters mark
However hunters mark also works with spell attacks, so you could cast hunters mark and scorching ray in the same turn, each ray doing 2d6 fire and 1d6 force damage, that works
Quicken spell won't work. It has it's own language that prevents you from casting a spell with a level. Basically if you use Quicken spell you revert back to the 2014 rules.
You're right, I forgot about the update to quicken spell
Archfey Warlock was already so awesome, and this just doubles down on it. You get a number of free Misty Steps equal to your Charisma modifier per day, and with this you can use them on the same turns as you cast another spell as an action.
Perplexing that Archfey is regularly rated somewhere around C minus on RUclips Warlock subclass tier lists. As a self-confessed power gamer, the intangible elements of Fey patrons are still a lot of fun to play with and the strength of the subclass mechanics are obvious, especially in actual gameplay at lower levels. Expanded spell list is only really lacking at level 2. Fey Presence and Misty Escape are absolute clutch subclass features that improve survivability immensely.
Not sure if this is still true for tier 3 or 4 because the utility of the Warlock class caps out at level 9, so even if the campaign goes this long a multiclass dip is always better than higher Warlock levels (power gamer perspective).
The true strength of the Archfey Warlock is its slightly chaotic, unpredictable playstyle, which fits thematically.
As for the rest of the Warlock subclasses. Fiend? Too dumb for Evoker school. Undead? Too dumb for Necromancy school. Undying? Too dumb to realise this isn’t Undead. Great Old One? Edgelord loner. Celestial? Too foolish for the priesthood. Genie? Main character syndrome. Fathomless? Slightly more useful than playing a Commoner. Hexblade? Too cowardly to go full martial.
S tier.
Scrolls are a casters best friend.
As they always were for wizards since the 2014 PHB. As a wizard, you could have an extensive spell book but you were always quite limited by the number of spells you could prepare. So you wouldn’t prepare spells that were situation specific unless you had good reason to believe you’d need them. In other words, the wizard’s best feature - the variety of spells you could cast - was nerfed by the paucity of spells you could prepare.
Scrolls were the workaround to that limitation. They allowed you to have your little-used situational spells on scrolls and save your prepared spells for the ones you were most likely to need. Of course there’s a snag: scrolls are costly to produce. If your DM was niggardly with treasure, you were screwed. Sadly, that doesn’t seem to have changed with the 2024 revision.
@@drzander3378niggardly is a word I never would have thought existed
Warlock could use a Mystic Arcanum spell and cast a spell with a spellslot. That's bonkers.
yup
@@overlordofmidgard5876 the limitations are probably going to be casting times. Arcanum spells are an action, so you would only have a bonus action to do another spell. I still don't know if that makes Arcanum spells worth it.
@@bradleyhurley6755there are warlock spells you can learn that are a bonus action to cast, including for the arcanums. So you can arcanum bonus action cast or cast with an action and then still cast a bonus action spell using a spellslot.
@@bradleyhurley6755 but it does make them a little stronger. Not alot but a little.
@@Deathmvp1 a little yes. But you can multiclass into sorcerer and gain like a ton of spells.
This is also a huge boon for the Cleric as well, whose Divine Intervention lets you cast a spell of 5th level or lower as a Magic [Action] once per Long Rest without expending a spell slot. Gonna be honest, don't know what Bonus Action spells you'd want to compliment with a 5th level Cleric spell or lower, but it's pretty neat. Also, also regarding Divine Intervention, the only other restriction to the spell you can cast with Divine Intervention is it cannot be a spell that requires a Reaction. This means you can cast spells with a longer Casting Time than an Action. A friend pointed out that you could cast Hallow, a spell that has a *_24 HOUR_* Casting Time in a single action. That's crazy fucking powerful against the creature types affected. Just a very neat thing for Clerics.
Sanctuary, shield of faith
Sancutary can be combined anything concentration not affecting your enemy or to get a pot shot off then Sanctuary afterwards.
Shield of faith is extra defense as you are doing non concentration spells.
Why is everyone freaking out so bad about it, most BA spells are movement or utility. Even if someone uses a Wand of Fireball to nuke a field or a Scroll of Annihilation and then misty steps 30 whole feet away...big whoop, that is still in range of most creatures one way or another.
If you can do it with enough gold why have the limit in the first place on casting spells?
@@mogalixir access to gold and magic items is limited to what the DM grants as a reward. It's not a reliable way to circumvent the rule.
@@mogalixir to set up earlier levels to not become unbalanced quickly. These rules are mainly for helping newer DMs balance levels 1-8ish.
best use case i can think of is healing word your fallen buddy up from 0 and do a scroll same turn
I would have less of a problem with this if they hadn't removed paladin's ability to smite and misty step on the same turn because apparently that's too powerful but this is just fine.
Quicken spell has a separate restriction, you could use a psychic spell and then misty step, but not a psychic spell and then quickened spell
Quickened spell reads you can't cast any level 1 or higher spells before or after you use it
Wow well that blocks that off.
@barcster2003 there are a bunch of loopholes in the new rules, I plan to make a fighter 1, warlock 1, valor bard 13 who upcasts armour of agathys, and then uses power word fortify, replacing the temp hp, but with new temp HP rules, it is not explicitly stated that you lose the old temp HP first, leaving you with none, and then replacing them
Basically temp HP still doesn't stack but you can extend armour of agathys by replacing your temp HP pool with a large sum of temp hp, and power word fortify gives you 120
And the fighter is for heavy armour so I can use heavy armour master, as well as fighting style for protection, which is amazing, though if you want smite but not protection, you can take a 1 level paladin instead
If you provoke an Opportunity Attack on your turn, and then cast Shield as a reaction (using a spell slot), does this mean you cannot cast any more spells on that turn that require spending a spell slot?
Yes. But keep in mind a turn is each individual players actions. A round is the entire initiative pass.
@@bradleyhurley6755 Aware of this. The example I gave was for a character casting a reaction spell ON THIER TURN that used up a spell slot.
@@DRuckle That is correct. So there is no longer any way for a caster to counterspell a counterspell themselves.
@@DRuckle sorry. I read shield and just assumed it was another person's turn because I don't think that would be a wise move to begin with. If you really need to avoid getting hit, misty step or any spell that physically moves you is probably going to be better than shield.
But yeah, you could not cast another spell with a spell slot until your turn was over.
@@Unholydragoon Unless the spell they cast didn't consume a spell slot or they have a way to cast counter spell without a spell slot such as a scroll.
This gives the Order of the Scribe Wizard a massive power up
Scribe 17 / Thief 3
@@sillvvasenseiScribes is stupidly powerful with the damage change also XD You could technically work out Resistances in a single turn lol
So wait... If you cast a spell on your turn, and an enemy spellcaster counterspells you, you can't counterspell back???
Since the enemy's counterspell happens on your turn, no, you won't be able to counter their counterspell.
there are new rules for counterspell now, if your spell gets countered you don't use up your spell slot anymore just your action, which would mean you could still cast it again with your reaction.
@@Morgatronbot
1: Player uses their Action to attempt to cast a spell using a spell slot
2: GM uses a Reaction to cast Counterspell.
3. Same player uses their reaction to also cast Counterspell using a spell slot.
4. Players 1st spell fails anyway because they've already used a spell slot this turn.
@@Morgatronbot yeah but if you counterspelled their counterspell, then you spent a slot ont he counterspell, but you also already spent a slot on the original spell
this is giving me a headache
@@codebracker yep, I shouldn’t have even chimed in 😂 too confusing, I don’t even have the new book yet either
I feel like its will change in an errata to ''only one leveled spell per turn'' instead of ''one spell slot per turn''.
That's possible but I honestly believe it was intentional. You're going to be limited to a smaller selection of spells you can use, and you have to expend uses of those abilities to cast without a spell slot.
Eberron players with Dragonmarks are going to love this.
Honestly I'm actually happy with this change, it seems more interesting and varied... Though whwat I have pointed out and not heard anyone else talk about is that it wrecks counterspell chains (as usually the initial caster would counterspell the first counterspell).
Thief Rogues with scrolls go brrr
So, just use a staff of the magi to throw out a fireball or something and then immediately use your bonus action to cast sanctuary on yourself?
Wizard Spell Mastery.. Misty step every turn. 😁
I forgot wizards are going to be able to cast it a ton.
I may be getting the terminology of turn and round confused and I'm not sure if either one is used interchangeably or there is a specific definition for each, but doesn't this rule kind of bring up questions of reaction spells? For example if you use fireball, can you still use shield as a reaction when it's not your turn? And am I using turn correctly in this instance and is that where I'm getting mixed up?
Thieves now get to activate magic items as a bonus action. So dual wand wielding is finally a thing in 5e.
These new changes makes sense. Its a bit how it worked in older editions.
This is... actually fun.
It does make races with racial magical abilities much more optimal, however.
I was already worried about giving out items like Wands of fireball because it lets casters be powerful for much longer before they run low on resources and martials start to shine, but now if they can cast leveled spells as a bonus action and wand of fireball on the same turn, I will just about never give out such items
Magic Initiate is going to be eating good
Sadly they changed it to only be action spells
The one thing that actually helps the Ranger since they've given them the number of free castings of Hunter's Mark, then cast a damage spell as an action
True!
Except as far as I can think, there isn’t really any leveled action spell that would be helpful to cast on the same turn that rangers get. Maybe it can be somewhat helpful if you have to cast something like Plant Growth on the first turn and then want to be able to use your BA on the second turn for an attack, but it opens you up to losing concentration before even getting one attack off, which doesn’t feel super great even when you didn’t spend a spell slot
@@Jp138233 Conjure barrage got a huge buff. It's pretty strong. Or one of the summon/conjure spells.
@Jp138233 rangers need justice 😭
*everyone freaking out about spellcasting once per turn being changed to one spellslot cast once per turn
Me, who rules it that you can multicast any leveled spell once per turn:
👁️ 👄 👁️
What do you mean "now"? There's always been eight septillion ways to circumvent the old multiple spells rule.
I kinda like the change.
Still leaves opportunities open for cool things to happen, but not OP or broken.
~_~
This is one of the things I wished they would have explicitly clarified in the book.
Sure, we can see that the rules allow this as written, but is that an oversight or by design?
Something else for the anti-fun internet crowd to complain about.
@@michaelmuirhead910 To be honest if you are playing in my game, the encounter is going to be balanced. Two fireballs in a row may sound fun, but the encounter will already have taken that into account so you aren't actually gaining anything.
It's just unbalanced man xd.
Does this mean you could cast five fireballs with scrolls, then cast a fireball with your spell slot?
@nerdimmersion what ever happened to the necromancer you were making for the Legendary Undead book? You had said you would show it on the channel but it’s been almost a year and nothing.
I love how it breaks the game, but only with you subclass / specy spells. It's more thematic than the 2 levels fighter dip
If a reaction can Happen on your turn is it considered “part of your turn” or are reactions a separate entity?
Hmm it would be good to get clarification.
When I first heard of this rule I thought of the free Hunter's Marks the rangers get at higher levels. I can't think of any good spells in the current game, but can anyone with the 2024 phb think of a good spell to cast on the same turn?
well to that point, hunter's mark would fall into this, if you wanted to use it and cast a spell in the same turn
@@NerdImmersion Yeah, I just can't think of a spell I'd really want to do that on the regular. My first thought was Conjure Barrage and Hail of Thorns, but in the 2014 rules Hail of Thorns also used a bonus action, and CB is a dex save and HM only procs on weapons attacks. I was wondering if there are any new spells or changes to old ones that would make this work better.
This doesn’t change much imo, just applying a bit more restrictions on the most complicated classes.
Artificers are Gods now
Artificer X, Thief rogue 3+ should be fun!
Does warcaster still allow you to cast a spell as a reaction if something would provoke a reaction from you?
Abberant mind Tiefling cast dissonant whispers with sorcery points then they move away you can cast burning hands without using a spell slot then you can still bonus action cast something else.
Still a crazy combo that doesn’t even need more than one leveled spell will always be quicken spell booming blade dissonant whispers reaction booming blade because both booming blades explode immediately because the creature moves itself from the whispers.
Yes though the Reaction spell still has to be a one that ONLY targets the enemy that provoked. But Opportunity Attacks have also had a HUGE change, since they don't have to be against a "Hostile" creature, so a Cleric with War Caster could use their Reaction to cast Cure Wounds on an ally that walks past them as a Reaction
@@MrFirefan1234oh man thats incredible.
Scribe wizard is looking good!
Seems this is specifically worded to nerf smites.
Stealth Buff to Haste
Using an action and bonus action to cast leveled spells is not that broken most of the time. I let my players do it and it's fine. If you're worried about powergamers, you can just say that you limit one leveled spell per action type per round
The Scribe Wizard our campaign will have field day, between scrolls and her spells.
Can the Meta magic Adept can still be taken as a backwards capability feat ? 4th level of course
Technically yes, but they updated Metamagic Quicken to specific it can only be used to cast a spell of level 1+ once a turn, or something to that effect
So concentration changed too or rangers are going to be bad for another 10 years?
Hunters mark on ranger does not expend a slot
Yeah, no, I hard disagree with the idea that this is an easier to understand rule, and I say that from a DM perspective. The original rule worked in the sense that once it was understood (and I mean, seriously, come on) it simply worked from any perspective, and no one had to memorize whether each individual player used their free casting of any number of their slot-free spells earlier in a session or weeks ago IRL. To that you probably say, "Well, dndbeyond can track that." Yes, as a player-facing UI, sure, it can. As a DM, you just have to trust all of your players, and even with my group that's fairly well behaved, I am not seeing it for the simple fact that people forget to mark stuff, forget to rest, etc.
TLDR this version sounds like a pain to DM
Misty step just got boosted ti the stratosphere
Is reading a scroll or using a Wand not an Action?
They are part of the Magic Action, but the key is they don't use a SPELL SLOT
now, in the DMG, charged items will be defined as having spell slots. aka, Wand of fireballs, which gives you the ability to cast fireball while attuned to it and provides 7 3rd level spell slots with witch to cast fireball, or some such nonsense to nerf this new cool thing.
I doubt it. I think they realized the old rule was just too confusing, and this one is so much simpler and cleaner. And so what if it makes certain features and items stronger? It makes class and species features even more useful, and it's not like it's broken, plenty of tables ignore that rule to start with and they're just fine. This one is less likely to be forgotten/ignored, and leaves open some really cool "aha! but that didn't use a spell slot!" situations that will be a lot of fun.
That would make it incredibly wordy to explain that you can upcast by spending more charges as you can in the 2014 version.
@@gunnarkilborn3915 I agree, it would be lame, I'm just worried WotC will pull the rug out from under us
One of the worst and most unbalanced changes in the new book, even through I know why they did it. A class like the Ranger would be very nerfed if the rule is "only one leveled spell per turn". But still this is just too powerful and very unbalanced.
Also using a Magic Item to cast spells uses the Use Magic Item rules and still would take an action.
This rule effectively negates half or more of the times i use reaction spells. As someone playing a defencive/utility build wizard, i hate this. Counterspell is already nerfed in the new PHB, this rule compounds that nerf and whacks silvery barbs and shield for good measure. :(
Yep! Fun new stuff
WoTc buffed magic users with this but my fuckin barbarian can't dual wield battleaxes because it's "unrealistic/unbalanced". Such peak game design truly
So they've removed wizard dueling from dnd. That's worse than lame, that will probably make high CR monsters with spellcasting and counterspell damn near impossible for a pure caster to defeat. Not being able to counterspell a counterspell used against yourself turns you into a sitting duck. I dislike this a lot.
Even worse than that tbh. It turns into my turn, you counterspell, your turn, I counterspell. Unless you're actually doing something like with the scrolls to cast 2 leveled spells, which I'm willing to wager will be extremely rare, it takes layers of complexity and decision making out of combat.
well you can Counterspell a Counterspell if you wanted, but the spell is a shell of its former self now anyway
Everything has been so nerfed from 2014 lol. GWM, Sharpshooter, Keen Mind, lucky, rangers, paladins, force cage, action surge, ranged weapons in general lol, mobile, sentinel, PAM, alert, observant, counter spell, crossbow expert, ETC…ETC!!! The game is LESS diverse than it was before. It’s simplified with less choice and it’s damn sad!
While certain synergies have been removed which I find disappointing. Average DPR has increased significantly even after removing the -5/+10 component from feats. This is mostly due to weapon masteries and all general feats now being "half-feats" so you are always increasing your primary ability score and you are more likely to land attacks. Melee is now king especially dual wielding, I think the ranged nerf might have gone too far (perma prone enemies) but melee needed a boost in compensation for being at the more risk compared to ranged.
it says you can't cast a spell and bonus action, but you can cast a magic action and cantrip. why do you keep saying use bonus action with magic action, when it clearly says at the end magic action and cantrip. so no not 2 fire balls as sorcerer.
Can't cast a spell with a spell slot using the Magic action, the spell slot language is the key here
This is honestly worse than what we had though. You used to be able to cast up to 4 spells per round provided that the reaction spell trigger was later on. Now you’re going to get screwed by your reactions with this rule should you have to use them on your turn.
I think we actually need to get some clarification on this as well because it seems you no longer can counterspell a counterspell. That section in the Sage Advice compendium used to be very helpful to show people that you can cast multiple spells but now it seems it’s no longer correct. So what happens now if you cast fireball, someone counters you, and you try to counter them? Does your fireball fizzle out? Are you just stopped from doing it even though technically you still haven’t successfully cast your other leveled spell?
I will say a few things. Racial abilities usually dont count as spellcasting (Atleast how I rule it) And scrolls have always just gone under the "Use object"- Action, so you could always use a scroll and then cast a spell afterwards. Which is why its so lucrative to create your own scrolls if you are a wizard or cleric. Same goes for wands. Use Object action. Now we dont know how magic items will work with the new rules, if they've changed them in any way or so.
All of those are home rules. In the published 2014 rules all of those are casting a spell and follow standard spellcasting rules.
This sounds like the sort of mistake that happens after you layoff most of your publishing & editing employees. This is really basic stuff that WotC just screwed up. This is why everyone should stop playing D&D and try out other, better written & designed games.
Great video, too bad its about 6e (5e 2024). I won't be buying/playing/running 6e.
It probably would be better if they defined the spell groups better. Meaning that all auto spells are reaction actions, usually self active buffs, defensive types.
All attack magic spells are magic attack actions.
All utility spells are split between magic action and bonus action. Group utilities are magic action and self utilities are bonus action.
Creator's tend to get over hype and forget to proof check things.
I dunno, I don't buy it. Seems like a language oversight that's gonna get sage advice'd. I can't imagine the important thing being spending a spell slot vs the spell being a leveled spell, that just makes absolutely no sense.
*everyone is running with this interpretation even though it's almost certainly not rules as intended*
When you read how they updated Quicken spell, it seems like this interpretation is how it's supposed to be interpreted
O sorcerers are even more nasty now
Not really. It wasn't mentioned in this video but Quicken Spell itself prevents it. You can't cast another level spell on the same turn as you use quicken spell EVEN if it doesn't consume a spell slot. Only Cantrips. Effectively using Quicken Spell reverts you back to the 2014 rules.
Quicken spell as wording that disallows a level 1+ spell be cast before or after it on the same turn regardless if it is with a spell slot or not.
I think the new book is a mess, full of nonsense. I think Tales of the Valiant is a much better update to 5e, or maybe I'll try Dc20, or another system. In any case, I don't plan on buying the new players handbook
Second ;)
This is pretty huge, actually.